2 of 59 · every text model Kyma prices per token · 59 measured
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Two sources on this page and no others: what Kyma measured while serving these two models, and the specification Anthropic and Google publish for their own. Both run on one key, so switching is a one-line change.
Input price
Level
$2.70Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro charge the same per 1M input tokens.
Fastest response
Claude Sonnet 5
3.56 smedian, on one identical prompt sent to every model every six hours.
Most available
Claude Sonnet 5
98.5%over 604 observations in 30 days.
Where these models sit in the catalogue Kyma measures
Two numbers side by side tell you which is bigger and nothing about whether either is any good, so every panel puts these models against every text model Kyma prices per token, all 59 of them. That set is a stated rule and not a list, so there is no line-up to accuse anyone of choosing. Price is what Kyma charges today. Availability, throughput and latency are Kyma's own readings over 30 days, on the same method as /models. No benchmark scores, borrowed or invented.
Input price
lower is better
Claude Sonnet 5
Gemini 3.1 ProTicks above the rail are the models on this page; below it is every other model Kyma measures on this, 59 in all, on the same scale. The dashed rule is the field median, $1.009; the solid rule is its best, $0.0494, and 6 models sit beyond the axis.
Output price
lower is betterClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProTicks above the rail are the models on this page; below it is every other model Kyma measures on this, 59 in all, on the same scale. The dashed rule is the field median, $3.528; the solid rule is its best, $0.2164, and 6 models sit beyond the axis.
Failed requests
lower is betterClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProTicks above the rail are the models on this page; below it is every other model Kyma measures on this, 59 in all, on the same scale. The dashed rule is the field median, 1.49; the solid rule is its best, 0.00, and 2 models sit beyond the axis.
Throughput
higher is betterGemini 3.1 ProClaude Sonnet 5Ticks above the rail are the models on this page; below it is every other model Kyma measures on this, 59 in all, on the same scale. The dashed rule is the field median, 41; the solid rule is its best, 321, and 6 models sit beyond the axis.
Latency
lower is betterClaude Sonnet 5Gemini 3.1 ProTicks above the rail are the models on this page; below it is every other model Kyma measures on this, 59 in all, on the same scale. The dashed rule is the field median, 2.25s; the solid rule is its best, 0.81s, and 6 models sit beyond the axis.
Rank in the field
Out of every text model Kyma prices per token, 59 of which Kyma has measured. Where these models lose is stated in the same words as where they win.
Claude Sonnet 547th of 59 on cheapest input · 30th of 59 on most available · 50th of 59 on fastest tokens
Gemini 3.1 Pro47th of 59 on cheapest input · 57th of 59 on most available · 7th of 59 on fastest tokens
The facts a chart cannot draw
A conditional rate, a date, a claim with three answers and two different refusals. Still grouped by who said them.
| Fact | Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic | Gemini 3.1 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Price on Kyma What a request costs today. The rates themselves are in the panels above, against the whole price sheet. These two are the parts of a price a bar cannot carry. | ||
Cached input per 1M tokens, on repeated prefixes | $0.27 90% off input | $0.27 90% off input |
| Measured by Kyma Kyma's own numbers, on Kyma's own traffic. Availability, throughput and latency are drawn against the field above; this is the one measured fact with no scale to sit on. Same method, same figures as /models. | ||
Below release precision narrower than the creator shipped | Not established | Not established |
| Published by the creator The specification each creator publishes for its own model, read straight from the catalogue Kyma serves from. Nothing in this block is a Kyma opinion. | ||
Creator | Anthropic | Google |
Context window tokens in one request | 1M | 1.05MBest |
Max output hard ceiling on one response | 128KBest | 66K |
Accepts | Text, image, file | Text, image, audio, video, file |
Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
Vision input | Yes | Yes |
Weights | Closed | Closed |
“Best” marks the winning cell on exact published facts only. Measured rows carry sampling error, so this page does not rank them by their last digit.
Two sources, and nothing borrowed
On this page
Measured by Kyma
Uptime, throughput, latency and the precision the routes behind each model report, from Kyma's own traffic. Ours to publish, and it refreshes itself. Every one of them is drawn against the whole catalogue, because a figure with nothing to compare it to is not evidence.
Published by the creator
Context window, maximum output, accepted inputs, and tool, reasoning and vision support. Each creator's own specification for its own model, as is the precision each creator released its model at, which is the only thing that makes a serving format count as below it.
Taken off it
Third-party benchmark scores
We do not run those scoreboards. One can go stale without telling anyone, and it takes the page's credibility with it.
A Kyma quality score
We do not have one. Inventing a number to fill the gap would be worth less than the scores that were removed.
So this page will not tell you which model is smarter. It tells you which is cheaper, which is faster, which stays up, where each one sits against every other model we sell, and whether it is served below the precision its creator released it at. For the quality question, run them both on your own prompts. One key, one line changed, and the answer is about your work rather than someone else's test set.
Switch with one line
# One key, one endpoint. Only the model string changes.
client = OpenAI(base_url="https://kymaapi.com/v1", api_key="YOUR_API_KEY")
client.chat.completions.create(model="claude-sonnet-5", messages=[...])
client.chat.completions.create(model="gemini-3.1-pro", messages=[...])Questions
Which of Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro is cheapest?
On input tokens today, Claude Sonnet 5 at $2.70 per 1M. Gemini 3.1 Pro is $2.70. The panels above put both of those against every model Kyma prices, so you can see whether either is actually cheap.
Can I switch between Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro without changing my code?
Yes. All of them are served through the same OpenAI-compatible Kyma endpoint (https://kymaapi.com/v1) on one API key and one balance. Switching is a one-line change to the model field: `claude-sonnet-5`, `gemini-3.1-pro`.
Which has the largest context window?
Gemini 3.1 Pro, at 1.05M tokens. Claude Sonnet 5 has 1M. Pick the larger one for long documents or repository-level context.
Where do these numbers come from?
Two places and no others. Uptime, throughput, latency and the precision the routes report are measured by Kyma on its own traffic over the last 30 days, across all 59 models it prices per token, 59 of which are measured. Context window, maximum output, accepted inputs, tool, reasoning and vision support are the specification each creator publishes for its own model, cited on the model's own page, and so is the precision each creator released its model at. The "below release precision" row is the two put together: a serving format only counts as below the release once you know what the release was. This page carries no third-party benchmark scores, so it cannot rank these models on quality, and it does not pretend to.